The Cellar
Page 19 of 22 « First 912131415161718 19 202122
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   If you outlaw guns, then only.... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11922)

Hippikos 10-30-2006 10:21 AM
Quote:
It is very simple, if you don't want to exercise your right to own or carry, don't.
See how easy?
See how easy it is to get shot? With or without having your own concealed gun?

It's a vicious circle, more people buy guns because other people have guns making other people buying guns because these other have guns making other people....etcetera, etcetera...

Still all those people having guns does NOT make the US a safer place, as statistics proof.

It seems to me that the US with this gun problem together with the inflated War on Terror is rapidly becoming a State of Fear.

Quote:
ou ask, what if they had a gun? There's no way to answer that in one sentence.
The next time they'll have a gun, because you've got one. The next time you won't be so lucky, you can bet your 0.22 on that...

mrnoodle 10-30-2006 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippikos
See how easy it is to get shot? With or without having your own concealed gun?

It's a vicious circle, more people buy guns because other people have guns making other people buying guns because these other have guns making other people....etcetera, etcetera...

Still all those people having guns does NOT make the US a safer place, as statistics proof.

It seems to me that the US with this gun problem together with the inflated War on Terror is rapidly becoming a State of Fear.

The next time they'll have a gun, because you've got one. The next time you won't be so lucky, you can bet your 0.22 on that...
The next time I won't be so lucky, because they'll have a gun? Because I have a gun? What? Did you read any of the rest of the post? Training. Awareness. Responsibility. Only after you've aquired these can you make an argument against my rights that I will listen to.

I don't threaten people with guns. I don't shoot people. I don't consider gear more valuable than human life. But if you wish to victimize me or those I love, you will not find it easy. Anyone who wants to MAKE it easy can piss up a rope.

Spexxvet 10-30-2006 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieL
... My stance is that nobody who enters my property uninvited, to threaten me, my family or my guests, or steal my property should have any expectation of being cut any more slack than the law actually provides ...
I'll interpret that to mean you'll kill anybody that enters your property uninvited, to threaten you, or steal your property, but that you're evading the question. You need plausible deniability, eh?

Spexxvet 10-30-2006 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
...I don't threaten people with guns. I don't shoot people. I don't consider gear more valuable than human life. But if you wish to victimize me or those I love, you will not find it easy....
That's the way I feel. I just don't own a gun, either.

Spexxvet 10-30-2006 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
You don't shoot people until you know their intentions. Standing around my truck and trying to bracket me in is threatening, but not immediately life-threatening. Yes, I would have shot them if my life had been in danger. Luckily, the presence of a firearm discouraged them from making the decision to continue their plan. I wasn't anything special to them, just a target of opportunity. When the potential cost of robbing me became too great, they moved on. Thieves are lazy.

You ask, what if they had a gun? There's no way to answer that in one sentence. The outcome would differ depending on several tactical and practical (rhyme unintended) considerations: If I see a weapon out already, there's no need to walk into the situation. The cost of replacing my truck and its contents is far less than the cost of exchanging bullets in a parking lot. If I don't know that he's armed, but he pulls a gun from concealment when they approach from 10 feet away, it's too late to extricate myself from the situation. I'd yell "DROP IT NOW" and he would have about .5 second to comply. At that point, a victim should no longer be concerned for the welfare of his or her attacker. He has already demonstrated the willingness to use a gun on you to commit a crime, so any hesitation on your part from that point on constitutes suicide.

If you have been properly trained (and there are many many civilian firearms safety and self-defense courses that do the job marvelously), you have the upper hand in any encounter of that kind. You're not just walking around with a gun, reacting violently to any perceived threat. You should practice situational awareness during every waking moment, whether or not you ever own a gun. Any instructor worth his or her salt will tell you that this awareness is your first line of defense, always. You should hold your head up and look people in the eye when you walk past them (with a smile of course). Victims are often unaware of danger because their eyes are on the ground in front of their feet. They're often selected for that very reason -- they don't give off an aura of confidence and strength, and they are easy to sneak up on. You should briefly catalogue everyone you see: their location, direction, speed, demeanor, what they're wearing, whether they are talking. As soon as you walk into a room, you should note the exits. This isn't paranoia or some kind of pseudo-militaristic behavior. This is the kind of awareness that all animals have, and the kind that humans used to have, before we started queueing up for Starbucks, avoiding eye contact in the elevator, and basically becoming more like cattle than men and women. Once you've practiced it, it becomes automatic and runs completely in the background. You will defuse many, many situations before they ever become dangerous because your senses will guide you away from things or people that don't look right.

When something like my little encounter occurs, you should already know where cover and concealment is, what is behind the target (your attacker, presumably), and if there are multiple targets, which one presents the greater threat and will thus be the first one to engage. You will have a much better idea of whether to run or to stay and fight. If and when you draw a weapon, it will be for a damn good reason, and you will have a far greater ability to control the outcome. You will know that there is absolutely no justification for any kind of fancy wannabe trick shooting. You are going to get tunnel vision, your heart will be racing, and you will in no way be able to pull off some kind of Hollywood "shoot the gun out of his hand" bullshit. You will be lucky to hold it together enough to put the front sight on the center mass and squeeze off a round without jerking the barrel of the gun off target.

There's more to it than what I've haphazardly described here, but the point is, the general perception of guns and what gun owners represent is totally inaccurate. Most of us are extremely serious about the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, and are always mindful of the potential consequences of a mistake. I wish more people would take advantage of the training that's available. One of the last classes I took was split about 50/50 genderwise, and the ages ranged from 25 to 70. It was a good feeling to know at the end of the course that 10 more citizens were that much better equipped to keep themselves and those around them safe, whether or not they had a gun.
I agree with what you've said here. I wish that the part I made bold was "all" and not "most".

mrnoodle 10-30-2006 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjim
did you have that scary makeup on?
Dude. I did a much better job of that makeup at the gig on Saturday. Plus I had my pirate hat -n- dreads, black contact lenses, and the rest of my outfit (a white t-shirt with the words "lol, pirate" written in sharpie, a pair of shorts, and cowboy boots). I saw pics being taken, I hope I can get my hands on some.

rkzenrage 10-30-2006 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Except he has already surrendered his right to the state. That's why we hear such sour grapes trying to rationalize why it's better to be disarmed. European, you know...

(I don't think anybody who's Googling up stuff from the Brady Bunch and --oh, my ghod-- *Mother Jones magazine*should be talking about "junk science").
Wrong... the State is part of the problem. See the suspension of habeas corpus recently.
I will always hold that the populace should be as well, or better, armed than the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
If you come out of your house and a thug is stealing your son's wagon, do you just shoot him? After all, he's taking your stuff. And he might be armed - you can't be assured that he will let you "walk/run away". So, do you shoot him?
Depends on where he is, where you are and what his attitude is.
So, the answer is no. But you knew that, troll question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
Why do we even have police and a legal system, then?

Bruce, have you ever been shot or shot someone during a crime (whether you were committing the crime or were the victim?;) )
They are not everywhere all the time and are flawed individuals. Again, you knew this.

Spexxvet 10-30-2006 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
...Depends on where he is, where you are and what his attitude is.
So, the answer is no. But you knew that, troll question.
...
You say shit like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
Again, however, if someone is in my home uninvited & unannounced I am not going to ask to see their weapon... as a good father and the protector of my family I have NO CHOICE but to assume they are armed and their to kill us.
There is no time for anything else. That is a fact.
Giving them the opportunity to kill me makes me a bad father, husband and person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
You never know if you are going to be allowed to "walk/run away". Of that you have to "trust them" and I am not willing to do that with someone I already know is immoral & has a vested interest in not allowing me to do so, nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
No... I don't. But, I live in a castle doctrine state.
If you are in my home uninvited/unannounced you are there to kill my family... you die. The same goes for a street threat. I must assume you are armed and mean me, or my family, harm with deadly force.
No responsible parent/spouse has the right to assume anything else IMO.
BTW... being fired upon, seeing a gun, is WAY too late.
My answer.

Don't know about CO... but in FL if you have reason to believe that you are in danger it does not matter what side of the door the body falls on... you have the RIGHT to protect yourself and that is right and just.
I was a bouncer and in security for several years, you never know what they have on them and you never know exactly when and how they are going to choose to do what they are going to do. If they choose to attack you or behave in a manner as to force you to respond in manner that is such that you must believe that your life is in danger, you have no time to "decide" what the intricacies of the law are. There is time to act and nothing else. At least FL and some other castle doctrine states have the wisdom to know that....
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
The way I look at it is that I don't know that a criminal is not going to kill me. My life and the life of my family is not worth that gamble under any circumstances. The criminal chooses to place themselves in the situation where I have to decide to trust that they are not going to kill my family or I... I don't trust that and would be a bad husband and father if I trusted them more than my instincts and logic.
Logic says if they are a threat you must eliminate it in the most efficient and final way possible so the threat does not return so my I and/or my family no longer has to deal with said threat. It is simple.
and I present you with a situation requiring you to be precise in declaring your course of action and you say I'm trolling? Read you own quotes, then tell me again how I knew the answer. Then tell me how *your* answer is consistent with your previous declarations.

MaggieL 10-30-2006 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
I'll interpret that to mean you'll kill anybody that enters your property uninvited, to threaten you, or steal your property, but that you're evading the question.
You can interpret it that way. I certainly can't prevent you.

But, of course, it's not what I said.

I think I know now why you won't read the laws. They are carefully worded, and don't leave you any room for that kind of incredibly tortured distortion.

If you did read them, you'd know that they don't permit what you just allege *I* said...even though I have repeatedly said my conduct would be guided by the law.

But since you "don't care about the law" (your own verbatim words), you indulge in trying to put words in my mouth until you say something that confirms your own moronic little thesis.

It's really too bad you don't care about the law. I do. I guess somebody has to.

MaggieL 10-30-2006 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
and I present you with a situation requiring you to be precise in declaring your course of action and you say I'm trolling?
Yes, you're trolling. Because the precision you demand in an answer far exceeds what can reasonably be provided in response to a vague hypothetical.

Go read the law, come back when you're able to discuss the matter intelligently.

rkzenrage 10-30-2006 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
You say shit like:
and I present you with a situation requiring you to be precise in declaring your course of action and you say I'm trolling? Read you own quotes, then tell me again how I knew the answer. Then tell me how *your* answer is consistent with your previous declarations.
Inside my home, uninvited & unannounced, and outside stealing a wagon are two, ridiculously, different situations.
As someone said before, you just try to take a harmless situation and try to make it sound like someone is going to get shot for it.
It is a joke, as are your arguments.

If someone is in someone's home, they are there to do harm, period. It is that homeowner's job to assume so, for the sake of their family.
If I was outside and I realized that there was someone in my empty house I would not run in and shoot them just because of my stuff... and you know that. You know what my argument is, but you are a fanatic and are just twisting words to try to make a point you know you are losing on.
Keep it up, you are making my, and other's points... thanks.

I grew-up with weapons, though it is now expired carried a commercial conceal license and had the training to go with it. I know a hell of a lot more about what guns can do and the responsibility that goes with them than you ever will.

xoxoxoBruce 10-31-2006 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
snip~ I only commented on the people (and there must be a lot of them) who buy the glossy gun magazines, which do concentrate on the latest super-guns. One does not have to be an "expert" on guns or anything else to notice that America is a land of guns and gun fanatics. ~snip
Magazines have to have something different every month or the don't sell....I think that's a given.
Magazines dedicated to a single subject such as guns, cars, motorcycles, horses, models, etc., must compete for a limited market with other magazines of their ilk...... and for the attention($) of people that have multiple interests.
The best way to do that is to guarantee (prospective)readers something they haven't seen, hence the latest & greatest, on the cover.

If you go to a large newsstand, the number of magazines on guns is far outstripped by the number of magazines on quite a number of subjects.
I suspect you may not have noticed because those other subjects don't strike a nerve with you like guns do.
It's pretty obvious it does just because you call people with an interest in and/or use for, guns....fanatics.
For the opposition, that kills any possibility of logic or reason on your part, starting with that bias.
Do you understand why showing that attitude out of the gate, provokes the attitude you receive? :cool:

Aliantha 10-31-2006 12:20 AM
It has to be said that Americans portray themselves as gun 'fanatics' (although fanatics isn't the word but I think you can make the connection) in movies. You don't have to go any further than classics such as Dirty Harry to see that.

Of course, most movies are fiction, but it's also where people from other countries develop their perceptions.

Film makers do have more responsibility than they've shown to date in my opinion, if in fact, how Americans are presented through film is incorrect.

footfootfoot 10-31-2006 12:21 AM
As much as I'd love to own several guns, trust me, you don't want me owning any guns. I'd be shooting people left and right.

That asshole who ran me off the road when I was riding my bike. You know I'd fucking pop a cap in him.

The fuck stick who lets her dog shit on my lawn. blam. One less dog. pate or peta what ever, and alf can kiss my hinder.

not to mention all the scary people who live in my head.

Wholly mackeral.

Ibby 10-31-2006 02:00 AM
Thats actually one reason I have not to own one personally, I dont know how fucked up I really am and I dont wanna find out.


Well, no, I do know I'm pretty damn fucked up. Thats why I'm a pacifist. Cause as long as I tell myself that, its just that much easier to actually act like it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:45 AM.
Page 19 of 22 « First 912131415161718 19 202122
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.